firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...

[Andreas K. Foerster]

Am Thursday, dem 30. Oct 2008 schrieb sam.liddicott:

> >Wed Oct 29 2008  7:38:33 pm GMT from Bjoern Schiessle to "P.B."  
> >Subject: Re: firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...
> >
> >...
> >People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser
> >probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating
> >system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of
> >IceCat.
> 
> I enjoy the irony of the idea that free software should not allow people to
> be non-free; reminding me of the US burn-the-flag debate on whether or not
> flag burning should be a constitutionally supported expression of free speech
> given that burning a flag sort of opposed the principles of the country and
> constitution.

I don't know how this is related to this discussion.
Nobody here wants to forbid non-free software. And I do not know anybody
who says so. We just encourage to use Free Software, but we don't force
it on anybody.

> But I agree with most posters that free software needs to become relevant to
> people to whom software freedom is not yet relevant and Ithink that this will
> be done by being relevant in other ways which first means solving-the-problem
> at hand.

Who are these "most posters" who you refer to? I must have missed these 
postings, for I cannot find them. -- maybe P.B., but P.B. is not 
"most posters".

> To me whether or not iceweasel should support non-free flash is another
> incarnation of the older question: Should Stallman have used a non-free
> compiler to develop gcc? The answer NOW is "yes" because it clearly DID lead
> to more freedom, so there is no debate; 

He was working to write a freedom respecting replacement. That is good.
The answer would have been the same, if he failed. It was worth trying anyway.

> but the debate is still on about whether or not non-free flash is important. 

Most people, who ask for non-free flash are not involved in the process of
making it free. 

And by the way: there is a free replacement now:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/
So thanks to the strong efforts of the GNU project we have the 
"freedom of choice" now.

> For certain: those who say it
> should not be supported are those who value a C compiler more than a flash
> player, but the same is not true for many of those who are yet to embrace
> free software and whose entry will be delayed until it meets ALL their needs
> but only if WE insist on it.

Again: I don't know whom you are referring to.
AFAIK IceCat does work with the non-free flash plugin. The difference is 
only, that the default is a different plugin, ie. gnash, which is 
Free Software.

-- 
AKFoerster